Alkein Coates v. Sgt. Aladekere

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6869 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6869

ALKEIN COATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SGT. ALADEKERE; O. CHIMA, C/O II Patuxent; SIA KAIMACHIANDE, C/O II Patuxent; CAPTAIN T. CARTER; SGT. MARTIN, Property OFC; TRANSIT OFCS, on July 26, 2024; SERGEANTS, who did visits; MS. SARAH, Med. Doctor, Patuxent; MEDICAL DOCTOR, L-1 and MC-1; SGT. DAWN HALSEY; ADEBUKOLA ADEWOLE; FRANKLIN WRIGHT; OFC. YABO; A.W.

KIMBERLY STEWARD, Defendants - Appellees, and MR. GASPHER; PATUXENT, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Paula Xinis, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02022-PX)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6869 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Alkein Coates, Appellant Pro Se. Katie M. Pennell, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6869 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Alkein Coates seeks to appeal a notice issued by the district court’s clerk’s office advising him that the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action had filed a motion to dismiss. * The State Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The notice Coates seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we deny Coates’s motion for appointment of counsel, grant the State Appellees’ motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* The notice informed Coates that the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss and advised him of his right to respond to the motion. Coates’s case currently remains pending in the district court.